(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The manufacture and properties of iron and steel"

THE BLAST FURNACE.
69
(1)   Heat utilized in stoves in heating the blast.
(2)  Heat utilized in boilers in making steam.
(3)   Heat lost in ovens by incomplete combustion, in the stack gases, and by radiation.
TABLE II-D. General Equation of the Blast Furnace.
	Middles-borough.	Pittsburg.
Per ton of pig iron-Calories from formation of C0a ....... ..... ......................	2 427 000	1 982 000
	1 336 000	1/025 000
	3 810 000	3 137 000
		
	7 573 000	6 144 000
Per ton of coke-	2428000	2 360000
Calories from formation of CO ................................ ..	1 342 000	l'220'oOO
	8 812'000	3 735 000
		
	7,582,000	7 315 000
Distribution by per cent, of total energy—	32.1	32.2
Per cent from formation of CO .............. ...... .......... ..	17 6	]g 7
	60.3	51.1
		
Total .........................................................	100.0	100.0
		
(4) Heat lost at boilers by incomplete combustion, in the stack gases, and by radiation.
It would be possible to verify the conclusions if the exact calorific value of the coke were known, but this is not given in either case. Bell assumes that Durham coke contains 10 per cent, of earthy and volatile materials, but some of this volatile matter is hydrogen, which appears as potential heat in the gases. It is probable that the heat value of Durham coke is about 7400 calories per kilogram, or say 7,500,000 calories per ton. The coke of Connells-ville will probably give about 7,120,000 calories per ton. The figures given in Table II-D, as found by theoretical calculations, show a value for Durham, coke of 7,582,000 calories, being about' 1 per cent, greater than the foregoing assumption, and for Con-nellsville 7,315,000 calories, being about 3 per cent, more, while in Table II-B a somewhat different method gave 7,574,000 calories for Durham and 7,196,000 ''calories for Connellsville. This is a sufficiently close approximation, considering the inaccuracy of the data.